Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

LambrettaVVespa

As to calories in/calories out: For weight loss, yes, For nutrition, no.

Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me

Do you know flaming is against the terms of service here? You might want to think about that and cut it out since you only have two posts to your name.

For the record, OP, I thought that line was funny as hell :laugh:

I thought it was funny too.

Guess it's a little more serious here than other forums I've been on.

Nah. It's a laugh. You'll often come across a whiff of humour, albeit mostly subtle. Sarcasm is high on the agenda for MFP.

AJ_G

#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.

I'm also gaining muscle mass (albeit not a huge amount, but enough for it to be noticeable just from appearance and strength) while losing weight at a reasonable pace.

Strength gains do not equal muscle mass gains

Appearance of muscle size increase does not equal muscle mass gains

Oh wait bod pod and Dexa scans must be a lie. I get bod pod every 2 weeks, Dexa and ultra sound every 4-6 weeks. I also do metabolic tests every 8-12 weeks.

I should have put does not necessarily equal muscle mass gains. What I mean is people see strength increases all the time while maintaining muscle mass and while losing muscle mass so that is not a good indicator of muscle mass. Bod pod and Dexa scans however are a good indicator of muscle mass gain or loss.

AJ_G

#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.

So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?

LOL. No, I am lucky to know some pro coaches who train NFL athletes, not a bro coach. Its not very uncommon for people to gain muscle and lose fat. At least not where I take my advice from, there are plenty of studies which prove that.

I'm not disputing that it's possible, just hard to believe, that's a hell of a lot of muscle to put on while losing that much fat, but good for you. Have you been in a steady calorie deficit the entire time or have you done any bulking cycles?

MelodyandBarbells

OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts

Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

AnswerzPwease

OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts

Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

I don't really know all the science to be honest. But my doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.

Yeah I try to do heavy. As heavy as I can. I do 6 to 8 reps whatever it is to failure, and 4 sets of those

Leonidas_meets_Spartacus

#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.

So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?

LOL. No, I am lucky to know some pro coaches who train NFL athletes, not a bro coach. Its not very uncommon for people to gain muscle and lose fat. At least not where I take my advice from, there are plenty of studies which prove that.

I'm not disputing that it's possible, just hard to believe, that's a hell of a lot of muscle to put on while losing that much fat, but good for you. Have you been in a steady calorie deficit the entire time or have you done any bulking cycles?

No Bulking and deficit is different for me based on what Macros i eat. I gain weight/fat easily on a 2000 cal Standard american diet. I watch my carbs had no problem losing weight/fat on a 2000-2500 cal diet. I watch my carbs doesn't mean its zero carbs, I eat lots of vegetables and limited portions of fruits in smoothies. My focus was not so much on losing weight but increasing my metabolism and fat burning. Human body is amazing in adapting and with a proper diet and exercise program you can accomplish a lot.

neandermagnon

Wow part 2.

Thank you.

I'm in my late 20's ... 5 foot 11 inches ... 369 pounds.

I eat around 600 to 1200 calories a day.

I'm going to re-read your post a few times

At your weight and age, if you're new to weight training, then you probably will see some noob gains, i.e. gain muscle in a deficit in the short term. But the weight on the scale should start to come down as long as you're in a calorie deficit once these changes (noob gains, increased glycogen storage, increased bone density) have taken place... they will stall scale weight loss initially, but not indefinitely.

You should be able to eat quite a bit more than that and still lose weight. I've known of guys your size eat like 2500 cals/day and still lose 2-3lb a week. Eating more enables you to be more active, and therefore burn a higher total number of calories, and additionally, exercise has many health benefits (including building up your muscles and bones), it's not just for fat loss. Too big a deficit can be counterproductive... though as you have quite a bit to lose your body can handle a bigger deficit without so much risk of problems, so long as you are strength training and your protein intake is adequate. The main issue to look for is that you don't succumb to excessive hunger or rebound overeating. If that happens then you definitely need to eat more. The ideal number of calories is where you are getting enough to eat so you don't feel hungry, deprived and are not succumbing to rebound overeating or binge eating, but you're still losing weight steadily. 2-3lb/week fat loss is optimal when you have a lot to lose... as you get closer to goal you'd need to adjust that so you lose more slowly. There's nothing wrong with taking the fat loss more slowly though if you find it easier to stick to that way. It may take some trial and error to find your optimal calorie intake, whereby you're losing at a good rate and still enjoying eating and life in general. The important thing is being able to stick with it long term.

EvgeniZyntx

1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....

MelodyandBarbells

OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts

Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

I don't really know all the science to be honest. But my doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.

Yeah I try to do heavy. As heavy as I can. I do 6 to 8 reps whatever it is to failure, and 4 sets of those

You may wish to consult with your doctor on the amount of food you're able to eat while on the medication, as well as the exercise you're doing.

Here's another link, about four posts down she compiles calorie dense items to add to your diet and increase your caloric intake. So as far as volume of food you may not be eating much, but hopefully if you use some of the items that might work for you, you wouldn't be eating 600 calories per day either

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1331494-1200-calories-per-day

Christineclendaniel

[
[/quote]

I'd add this link, it's an absolutely great article with 148 citations to scientific studies:

http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/
[/quote]

Great read, thanks for posting!

AnswerzPwease

Wow part 2.

Thank you.

I'm in my late 20's ... 5 foot 11 inches ... 369 pounds.

I eat around 600 to 1200 calories a day.

I'm going to re-read your post a few times

At your weight and age, if you're new to weight training, then you probably will see some noob gains, i.e. gain muscle in a deficit in the short term. But the weight on the scale should start to come down as long as you're in a calorie deficit once these changes (noob gains, increased glycogen storage, increased bone density) have taken place... they will stall scale weight loss initially, but not indefinitely.

You should be able to eat quite a bit more than that and still lose weight. I've known of guys your size eat like 2500 cals/day and still lose 2-3lb a week. Eating more enables you to be more active, and therefore burn a higher total number of calories, and additionally, exercise has many health benefits (including building up your muscles and bones), it's not just for fat loss. Too big a deficit can be counterproductive... though as you have quite a bit to lose your body can handle a bigger deficit without so much risk of problems, so long as you are strength training and your protein intake is adequate. The main issue to look for is that you don't succumb to excessive hunger or rebound overeating. If that happens then you definitely need to eat more. The ideal number of calories is where you are getting enough to eat so you don't feel hungry, deprived and are not succumbing to rebound overeating or binge eating, but you're still losing weight steadily. 2-3lb/week fat loss is optimal when you have a lot to lose... as you get closer to goal you'd need to adjust that so you lose more slowly. There's nothing wrong with taking the fat loss more slowly though if you find it easier to stick to that way. It may take some trial and error to find your optimal calorie intake, whereby you're losing at a good rate and still enjoying eating and life in general. The important thing is being able to stick with it long term.

My doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.

AnswerzPwease

1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....

Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?

AJ_G

1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....

Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?

No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.

Kalikel

Healthy food makes healthy bodies, but you can certainly lose weight without it.

So many otherwise-rational people have told me they lose more by eating earlier that I haven't discounted the idea.

AJ_G

Healthy food makes healthy bodies, but you can certainly lose weight without it.

So many otherwise-rational people have told me they lose more by eating earlier that I haven't discounted the idea.

You should discount it, because they're wrong. Doesn't matter when you eat, how many meals you eat, how big each meal is, all that matters is total intake at the end of the day.

Kalikel

My doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.

I took a pill that erased all appetite. Then I got sweaty and felt...not dizzy, but "off"... so I thought, "Oh, heavens! I must eat!" After about four bites, I vomited.

Lack of food wasn't the problem, lol. The pill was. (Duh.)

Probably not your issue! But when that happens - you get a pill and lose your appetite - it's good to call. (You probably are smarter then I am and already did.)

yarwell

Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.

Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "

Leonidas_meets_Spartacus

1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....

Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?

No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.

Not true at all. Your body doesn't know what calorie is but the way it process fat, carbs, protein is very different.

eric_sg61

1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....

Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?

No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.

Not true at all. Your body doesn't know what calorie is but the way it process fat, carbs, protein is very different.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html
FTA:

1.Carbs are rarely converted to fat and stored as such
2. When you eat more carbs you burn more carbs and less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and more fat
3. Protein is basically never going to be converted to fat and stored as such
4. When you eat more protein, you burn more protein (and by extension, less carbs and less fat); eat less protein and you burn less protein (and by extension, more carbs and more fat)
5. Ingested dietary fat is primarily stored, eating more of it doesn’t impact on fat oxidation to a significant degree

"Carbs don’t make you fat via direct conversion and storage to fat; but excess carbs can still make you fat by blunting out the normal daily fat oxidation so that all of the fat you’re eating is stored. Which is why a 500 cal surplus of fat and a 500 cal surplus of carbs can both make you fat; they just do it for different reasons through different mechanisms. The 500 calories of excess fat is simply stored; the excess 500 calories of carbs ensure that all the fat you’re eating is stored because carb oxidation goes up and fat oxidation goes down. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph until it sinks in."

AJ_G

Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.

Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway. When you burn more carbohydrates, your rate of fat oxidation is decreased because you are getting energy from the carbs. There's also really no need for the name calling, my name is not Shirley...